Article contents
Genetic variation and heavy metal tolerance in the ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete Suillus luteus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2000
Abstract
Twenty-one isolates of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Suillus luteus were screened for their tolerance to the heavy metals Zn, Cd, Cu and Ni, measured as inhibition of radial growth and biomass production. Two populations from even-aged pine stands were investigated: 10 isolates were obtained from an area polluted with high levels of Zn, Cd and Cu, and 11 isolates were obtained from a control population located in a nearby unpolluted area. RFLP patterns of the internal transcribed spacer region of the isolates confirmed the morphological identification of the carpophores. All isolates were maintained on basic medium without elevated metals to avoid phenotypically acquired metal tolerance. The in vitro Zn and Cd tolerance of the S. luteus isolates from the polluted habitat were significantly higher than the tolerances measured in the isolates from the nonpolluted site. This observation suggests that the elevated soil metal concentrations might be responsible for the evolution of adaptive Zn and Cd tolerance. Tolerance was maintained in an isolate not exposed to elevated metals for 3 yr. The two S. luteus populations did not differ in tolerance to Cu and Ni. The mechanisms for the adaptive Zn and Cd tolerance are not identical as there was no correlation between response to the two metals; the most Zn-tolerant isolate was the most sensitive for Cd in the metal-tolerant population. Zinc did not accumulate in basidiocarp tissue, whereas Cd levels in basidiocarps were significantly higher in the population on the polluted site. Inter-simple sequence-repeat fingerprints showed that 90% of the isolates were from different individuals. The genetic variation in the population from the unpolluted site was considerably larger than that observed at the polluted site.
Keywords
- Type
- Research article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Trustees of the New Phytologist 2000
- 108
- Cited by